http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPN.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SH. S. P. SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           O R D ER      Leave granted.      We have  heard learned  counsel  on  both  sides.  This appeal by  special leave  arises from the judgment and order of the  Division Bench  of the High Court of Allahabad, made on March  22, 1996  in the  First Appeal  No.  129/95.  This appeal and  also the  First Appeal No.128/95 before the High Court are  commonly disposed  of since  the acquisition  was common. A  notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for  short, the ‘Act’) was published on September  11, 1982 for acquiring 192.82 acres. The award came to  be passed  by the Land Acquisition Officer on March 3, 1984  in Award  No.44 in  respect of  137.52 acres of the land and  another award  dated September  21, 1986  in award No.44/1 in  respect of  33 acres  of land.  On  appeal,  the Additional  District   Judge  by  his  another  award  dated December 3,  1994 awarded  a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre. On appeal, the High Court ha reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,12,500/-  per   acre.  It   has  also   awarded   separate compensation for  the building,  factory and machinery. Thus this appeal by special leave.      In this  appeal, Shri  Juneja, learned  counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the judgment in the case of  Prem Nath Kapoor v. National Fertilizer Corporation [(1996) 2 SCC 71] wherein it was held that the claimants are not entitled  to solatium on additional amount awarded under Section 23(1A)  of the  Act, they  are also  not entitled to interest on  the  solatium.  The  learned  counsel  for  the respondent, in  fairness, has  stated that as per the decree of the  High Court,  thee was  no specific  mention that the claimants are  entitled to  the above  reliefs. It  mentions only that  the statutory  benefits would  be granted  as per law. Under  these circumstances,  it is  clarified that  the claimants are  not entitled  to interest  on solatium and on additional amount awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The appeal  is accordingly  allowed to  the above extent. No costs.